LETTER TO MR. J. C. MARTIN CONCERNING RELIGION AND POLITICS
November 6, 1908.
MY DEAR SIR :
I have received your letter running in part as
follows :
"While it is claimed universally that religion
should not enter into politics, yet there is no denying
that it does, and the mass of voters that are not
Catholics will not support a man for any office,
especially for President of the United States, who is
a Roman Catholic.
"Since Taft has been nominated for President by
the Republican party, it is being circulated and is
constantly urged as a reason for not voting for
Taft that he is an infidel (Unitarian) and his wife
and brother Roman Catholics. ... If his feelings
are in sympathy with the Roman Catholic Church
on account of his wife and brother being Catholics,
that would be objectionable to a sufficient number
of voters to defeat him. On the other hand if he
is an infidel, that would be sure to mean defeat. . . .
I am writing this letter for the sole purpose of
giving Mr. Taft an opportunity to let the world
know what his religious belief is."
I received many such letters as yours during the
campaign, expressing dissatisfaction with Mr. Taft
on religious grounds; some of them on the ground
that he was a Unitarian, and others on the ground
that he was suspected to be in sympathy with Catho
lics. I did not answer any of these letters during
the campaign because I regarded it as an outrage
even to agitate such a question as a man s religious
conviction, with the purpose of influencing a politi
cal election. But now that the campaign is over,
when there is opportunity for men calmly to con
sider whither such propositions as those you make
in your letter would lead, I wish to invite them to
consider them, and I have selected your letter to
answer because you advance both the objections
commonly urged against Mr. Taft, namely : that he
is a Unitarian, and also that he is suspected of sym
pathy with the Catholics.
You ask that Mr. Taft shall "let the world know
what his religious belief is." This is purely his
own private concern; it is a matter between him
and his Maker, a matter for his own conscience ; and
to require it to be made public under penalty of
political discrimination is to negative the first prin
ciples of our Government, which guarantee complete
religious liberty, and the right to each to act in
religious affairs as his own conscience dictates. Mr.
Taft never asked my advice in the matter, but if
he had asked it, I should have emphatically advised
him against thus stating publicly his religious belief.
The demand for a statement of a candidate s re
ligious belief can have no meaning except that there
may be discrimination for or against him because
of that belief. Discrimination against the holder
of one faith means retaliatory discrimination against
men of other faiths. The inevitable result of enter
ing upon such a practice would be an abandonment
of our real freedom of conscience and a reversion
to the dreadful conditions of religious dissension
which in so many lands have proved fatal to true
liberty, to true religion, and to all advance in civili
zation.
To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citi
zen because he belongs to some particular church,
or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not
avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage
against that liberty of conscience which is one of the
foundations of American life. You are entitled to
know whether a man seeking your suffrages is a
man of clean and upright life, honorable in all of
his dealings with his fellows, and fit by qualification
and purpose to do well in the great office for which
he is a candidate ; but you are not entitled to know
matters which lie purely between himself and his
Maker. If it is proper or legitimate to oppose a
man for being a Unitarian, as was John Quincy
Adams, for instance, as is the Rev. Edward Everett
Hale, at the present moment Chaplain of the Senate,
and an American of whose life all good Americans
are proud then it would be equally proper to sup
port or oppose a man because of his views on justi
fication by faith, or the method of administering
the sacrament, or the gospel of salvation by works.
If you once enter on such a career there is absolutely
no limit at which you can legitimately stop.
So much for your objections to Mr. Taft because
he is a Unitarian. Now, for your objections to him
because you think his wife and brother to be Roman
Catholics. As it happens, they are not; but if they
were, or if he were a Roman Catholic himself, it
ought not to affect in the slightest degree any man s
supporting him for the position of President. You
say that "the mass of the voters that are not Catho
lics will not support a man for any office, especially
for President of the United States, who is" a Roman
Catholic." I believe that when you say this yon
foully slander your fellow countrymen. I do not
for one moment believe that the mass of our fellow
citizens, or that any considerable number of our
fellow citizens, can be influenced by such narrow
bigotry as to refuse to vote for any thoroughly up-
right and fit man because he happens to have a par
ticular religious creed. Such a consideration should
never be treated as a reason for either supporting
or opposing a candidate for a political office. Are
you aware that there are several States in this
Union where the majority of the people are now
Catholics ? I should reprobate in the severest terms
the Catholics who in those States (or in any other
States) refused to vote for the most fit man because
he happened to be a Protestant ; and my condemna
tion would be exactly as severe for Protestants who,
under reversed circumstances, refused to vote for
a Catholic. In public life I am happy to say that
I have known many men ,who were elected, and
constantly re-elected, to office in districts where the
great majority of their constituents were of a dif
ferent religious belief. I know Catholics who have
for many years represented constituencies mainly
Protestant, and Protestants who have for many
years represented constituencies mainly Catholic;
and among the Congressmen whom I knew par
ticularly well was one man of Jewish faith who
represented a district in which there were hardly
any Jews at all. All of these men by their very
existence in political life refute the slander you have
uttered against your fellow Americans.
I believe that this Republic will endure for many
centuries. If so there will doubtless be among its
Presidents Protestants and Catholics, and, very
probably at some time, Jews. I have consistently
tried while President to act in relation to my fellow
Americans of Catholic faith as I hope that any
future President who happens to be a Catholic will
act towards his fellow Americans of Protestant faith.
Had I followed any other course I should have felt
that I was unfit to represent the American people.
In my Cabinet at the present moment there sit
side by side Catholic and Protestant, Christian and
Jew, each man chosen because in my belief he is
peculiarly fit to exercise on behalf of all our people
the duties of the office to which I have appointed
him. In no case does the man s religious belief in
any way influence his discharge of his duties, save
as it makes him more eager to act justly and up
rightly in his relations to all men. The same prin
ciples that have obtained in appointing the members
of my Cabinet, the highest officials under me, the
officials to whom is entrusted the work of carrying
out all the important policies of my administration,
are the principles upon which all good Americans
should act in choosing, whether by election or ap
pointment, the men to fill any office from the highest
to the lowest in the land.
Yours truly,
THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
Mr. J. C. MARTIN,
Corner Fourth and Jefferson Streets,
Dayton, Ohio.